Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.090 (2026)

Application of general provisions of the code

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The provisions of chapters 9A.04 through 9A.28 RCW of this title are applicable to offenses defined by this title or another statute, unless this title or such other statute specifically provides otherwise.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.04.090.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1981–2018 · leading case: City of Seattle v. Fontanilla, 909 P.2d 1294 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Seattle v. Fontanilla, 909 P.2d 1294 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 12× “110, argues that the statute is limited by the provisions of RCW 9A.04.090, and thus has application only when a defendant is charged with a violation of a statutorily defined offense.”
State v. Kwan Fai Mak, 718 P.2d 407 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “030(1)(a), and the complicity statute is, therefore, expressly applicable to that crime, RCW 9A.04.090. Furthermore, exception was not taken to instruction 7.”
State v. Lee, 979 P.2d 458 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “On appeal, the City and State argued that RCW 9A.04.090 limited reimbursement under RCW 9A.”
State v. Shannahan, 849 P.2d 1239 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “021 and RCW 9A.04.090 authorizes restitution upon conviction of negligent driving.”
Lee v. Jasman, 332 P.3d 1106 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Recognizing that criminal offenses are defined in statutes outside of Title 9A, the legislature provided in RCW 9A.04.090 that Title 9A’s definition section (among other general provisions of the title) would apply to “offenses defined by this title or another statute, unless…”
United States v. Guerrero-Navarro, 737 F.3d 976 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 9A.04.090. Consequently, the definitions must be broad enough to allow for appropriate interpretation in context.”
State Of Washington v. Esteban Joel Flores, 374 P.3d 222 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “In so holding, this court relied on RCW 9A.04.090’s command that “ ‘[t]he provisions of chapters 9A.”
State Of Washington, V Adrian Reyni Valencia, 416 P.3d 1275 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Sufficiency Analysis The evidence was undisputed that Valencia failed to report on May 18, 2016 and that he failed to give notice within three days after he moved to Oregon on May 24. The only issue is whether these were “knowing” failures.”
Grant Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney v. Jasman, 354 P.3d 846 (Wash. 2015). “010(24)); Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 260.”
State v. Funkhouser, 637 P.2d 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Addressing defendant's first contention, we note that the instructions given allowed the jury to convict defendant for any one of several acts he allegedly committed between January 1, 1972 and July 15, 1978.”
Est. of Kissinger v. Hoge, 173 P.3d 956 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “We are then left with the question of the degree to which Hoge's delusion prevented him from forming the intent to kill.”
D. Angus Lee v. Jerry Jasman (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Recognizing that criminal offenses are defined in statutes outside of Title 9A, the legislature provided in RCW 9A.04.090 that Title 9A's definition section (among other general provisions of the title) would apply to "offenses defined by this title or another statute, unless…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.